Approval, top 10 plurality, Instant Runoff voting, and Condorcet/Shultz all are superior to each other at different stages of the elections process, and all should be used.
1. Approval signatures are a good way to nominate 50+ candidates to public consideration. Governors might need more than 50, like say, 300. People should be allowed to sign the petition of any candidate they think is good, so that candidate can at least get their resume and platform on a public website where other candidates can debate them. They don't know who the next candidate they meet will be, so they need to be able to sign more than one petition.
We can't do Condorcet or IRV on 1000 candidates when no one has time to research them all and the counting and polling would be impossible. While those are theoretically better, they are a waste of resources at this stage.
2. Top 10 plurality voting (one vote per person) is a good way to eliminate the strategy of approval primaries, end the questionability and non-annonymnity of large signature petitions. Candidates with similar views who are from small parties may drop out beforehand so that one of them will make the top ten, that or expose the other as an imposter. Top 10 plurality is not needed if there are 10 or fewer running for office.
Yes, Instant Runoff voting is far superior to top 10 voting. The problem with Instant runoff voting on 50 candidates is when you have more than 10 candidates, the number of rounds runoffs becomes huge. 50 candidates is also a lot of candidates for everyone to research, though it is better than 1000.
3. Instant Runoff voting is great for non-partisan primaries. It is good for taking the number of candidates from 10 down to 5. Votes are not wasted when used this way, especially compared to top 2 runoffs. Top 2 runoffs are only superior to IRV in that they are easy and fast to count. But once the number of candidates is 10 or less, IRV is practical. Voters can research and rank 10 candidates.
It is imperitive not to use Approval voting to determine who gets on the general ballot. Approval voting is very susceptible to strategic voting here.
Some might argue Condorcet should be used right here instead of IRV. I'd reply that IRV should then be used earlier --- just pick the cut off ranges.
4. Condorcet Voting is good for the general ballot. IRV, although better than plurality voting, still leaves voters wondering if they need to compromise vote. Some prefer IRV though because it gives extremists a chance to win, so they will show up. But the fact is they need to show up even if they can't win, or condorcet will elect a moderat closer to the other extreme in their abscence. Condorcet elects the candidate who would beat every other candidate head to head. When their are 5 candidates, voters have choices, but also can thuroughly research them each.
Some might argue that IRV and condorcet should be done from the same ballots, with IRV taking the number from 6 down to 4, and condorcet finishing to the winner.
If someone wants a multi-seat district, say three seats, then they can skip Condorcet at this point and do 6 down to 2 or 3, or 10 down to 4 with STV.
Whether the districts should join into multi-seat districts should probably be up to the districts. Whether an IRV-condorcet combo is better than straight Condorcet needs to be looked at. But the uses of Approval signing, top 10 plurality, IRV, and then condorcet/STV should be done in that order, and each have uses. It is not an issue of which is better, but simply that they have a time and place.
1. Approval signatures are a good way to nominate 50+ candidates to public consideration. Governors might need more than 50, like say, 300. People should be allowed to sign the petition of any candidate they think is good, so that candidate can at least get their resume and platform on a public website where other candidates can debate them. They don't know who the next candidate they meet will be, so they need to be able to sign more than one petition.
We can't do Condorcet or IRV on 1000 candidates when no one has time to research them all and the counting and polling would be impossible. While those are theoretically better, they are a waste of resources at this stage.
2. Top 10 plurality voting (one vote per person) is a good way to eliminate the strategy of approval primaries, end the questionability and non-annonymnity of large signature petitions. Candidates with similar views who are from small parties may drop out beforehand so that one of them will make the top ten, that or expose the other as an imposter. Top 10 plurality is not needed if there are 10 or fewer running for office.
Yes, Instant Runoff voting is far superior to top 10 voting. The problem with Instant runoff voting on 50 candidates is when you have more than 10 candidates, the number of rounds runoffs becomes huge. 50 candidates is also a lot of candidates for everyone to research, though it is better than 1000.
3. Instant Runoff voting is great for non-partisan primaries. It is good for taking the number of candidates from 10 down to 5. Votes are not wasted when used this way, especially compared to top 2 runoffs. Top 2 runoffs are only superior to IRV in that they are easy and fast to count. But once the number of candidates is 10 or less, IRV is practical. Voters can research and rank 10 candidates.
It is imperitive not to use Approval voting to determine who gets on the general ballot. Approval voting is very susceptible to strategic voting here.
Some might argue Condorcet should be used right here instead of IRV. I'd reply that IRV should then be used earlier --- just pick the cut off ranges.
4. Condorcet Voting is good for the general ballot. IRV, although better than plurality voting, still leaves voters wondering if they need to compromise vote. Some prefer IRV though because it gives extremists a chance to win, so they will show up. But the fact is they need to show up even if they can't win, or condorcet will elect a moderat closer to the other extreme in their abscence. Condorcet elects the candidate who would beat every other candidate head to head. When their are 5 candidates, voters have choices, but also can thuroughly research them each.
Some might argue that IRV and condorcet should be done from the same ballots, with IRV taking the number from 6 down to 4, and condorcet finishing to the winner.
If someone wants a multi-seat district, say three seats, then they can skip Condorcet at this point and do 6 down to 2 or 3, or 10 down to 4 with STV.
Whether the districts should join into multi-seat districts should probably be up to the districts. Whether an IRV-condorcet combo is better than straight Condorcet needs to be looked at. But the uses of Approval signing, top 10 plurality, IRV, and then condorcet/STV should be done in that order, and each have uses. It is not an issue of which is better, but simply that they have a time and place.